R/CR.MA/16443/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/09/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 16443 of 2025 (FOR SUCCESSIVE REGULAR BAIL - AFTER CHARGESHEET) ======================================================= AJAYBHAI DAYABHAI VADHER Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ======================================================= Appearance: MR YASH N NANAVATY(5626) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR VATSAL S PRAJAPATI(16276) for the Respondent No. 1 MS JYOTI BHATT APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ======================================================= CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI Date : 04/09/2025 ORAL ORDER 1. Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice of rule for respondent – State of Gujarat. 2. The present application is filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, for regular bail in connectio1n with the FIR being C.R. No.11211014230162/2023 registered with the Dasada Police Station, Surendranagar for the alleged offences as mentioned in the FIR. 3. Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that this is a successive bail application preferred by the applicant after the rejection of earlier bail application being Criminal Misc. Application No.20379/2024 by an order dated 28.10.2024. He submitted that in fact, the applicant is arrested in connection with the aforesaid offence on 19.07.2023 and since then, he is in judicial R/CR.MA/16443/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/09/2025 custody. He submitted that in fact, the co- accused, who is attributed grave role than the present applicant, has already been enlarged on bail by this Hon’ble Court, copy of said order is produced on record. He further submitted that in fact, during the interregnum period, amicable settlement has been arrived at between the parties and even in the trial also, the complainant and injured witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution, copies of depositions are produced on record. He further submitted that in fact, in view of the settlement, the original complainant has filed an affidavit to the effect that if the present application is allowed, he has no objection, copy of which is produced on record. It is, therefore, urged that considering the nature of the offence, the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail by imposing suitable conditions. 4. Learned APP for the respondent-State has opposed grant of regular bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence. It is submitted that the role of the present applicant is clearly spelt out from the papers of the chargesheet and as stated above, earlier bail application preferred by the applicant was not entertained and it was rejected by reasoned order and against the said order, SLP preferred by the applicant has been withdrawn. He further submitted that not only that, when the applicant was granted temporary bail, he misused R/CR.MA/16443/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/09/2025 his liberty and remained absconding and, thereafter, arrested by the police. He, therefore, submitted that at the time of deciding the present application, the conduct of the applicant is also required to be taken into consider. It is, therefore, urged that the present application may not be entertained. 5. Learned advocate appearing for the original complainant has supported the case of the applicant and confirmed about the amicable settlement arrived at between the parties as also filing of the affidavit, whereby consent is given for the grant of present application. It is, therefore, submitted that appropriate order may be passed. 6. Learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties do not press for further reasoned order. 7. I have heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and perused the papers of the investigation and considered the allegations levelled against the applicant and the role played by the applicant. It is found out from the record that this is a successive bail application preferred by the applicant after the rejection of earlier bail application. However the grounds on which the present successive bail application is preferred are that there is amicable settlement arrived at between the parties and one of the co-accused, who is attributed R/CR.MA/16443/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/09/2025 graver role than the present applicant, has already been granted bail by this Court. I have considered the role attributed to the applicant at the time of commission of crime. Further as stated above, amicable settlement has been arrived at between the parties and in support of it, the original complainant has also sworn an affidavit to the effect that he has no objection if the present application is allowed. Therefore considering the above factual aspects, considering the settlement arrived at between the parties as also on the ground of parity, the present application deserves to be allowed. 8. This Court has also taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in [2012] 1 SCC 40 as well as in case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51. 9. In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of the allegations made against the applicant in the FIR, without discussing the evidence in detail, prima facie, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise the discretion and enlarge the applicant on regular bail. 10. Hence, the present application is allowed. The applicant is ordered to be released on regular bail in connection with the FIR being C.R. R/CR.MA/16443/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/09/2025 No.11211014230162/2023 registered with the Dasada Police Station, Surendranagar on executing a personal bond of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and subject to the conditions that he shall; [a] not take undue advantage of liberty or misuse liberty; [b] not act in a manner injuries to the interest of the prosecution; [c] surrender passport, if any, to the concerned court within a week; [d] not leave the State of Gujarat without prior permission of the concerned court; [e] mark presence before the concerned Police Station on alternate Monday of every English calendar month for a period of six months between 11:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m.; [f] furnish the present address of residence to the Investigating Officer and also to the Court at the time of execution of the bond and shall not change the residence without prior permission of this Court; [g] not enter into Dasada Taluka for a period of six months except for marking presence as also for attending court proceedings; 11. The authorities will release the applicant only if he is not required in connection with any other offence for the time being. If breach of any of the above conditions is committed, the concerned R/CR.MA/16443/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/09/2025 Sessions Judge concerned will be free to issue warrant or take appropriate action in the matter. Bail bond to be executed before the lower Court having jurisdiction to try the case. It will be open for the concerned Court to delete, modify and/or relax any of the above conditions, in accordance with law. 12. At the trial, the trial Court shall not be influenced by the observations of preliminary nature qua the evidence at this stage made by this Court while enlarging the applicant on bail. 13. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted. (DIVYESH A. JOSHI, J.) Gautam Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: GAUTAM G PATIL(HC00190), Principal Pvt. Secretary, at High Court of Gujarat on 04/09/2025 14:22:52